Seems like some of the positive information we had regarding the counteroffensive has really died down in the last few weeks and is now turning quite negative. Reports of significant pullback in some areas as a result of staggering losses in both men and equipment is taking a toll on strategy and moral.
Russia had a LOT of time to prep serious levels of defenses across huge swaths of the frontline while NATO and western countries sat around and discussed a few tanks here and there for a grand total of 300 or something? Jet's in 6-9 months. Perhaps 25% of those tanks disabled within days of the offensive starting.
Ukraine has been given a lot of tools, equipment, training, intelligence and more. Can Ukraine really do what the west and NATO wants and that is liberate their land and gain back Crimea? That has been he starting point for Ukraine's leadership and nothing less.
Will the supporting allies provide significant long range missile support right away? Can they get top notch air defense, artillery and airforce equipment?
Are we asking them to do something that hasn't been done before with regards to beating an opponent without air superiority and having enough tools in the toolbox so to speak? We may be headed towards an inflection point where the roosters may be coming out to roost.
If we don't have major advances soon, is the chance that Ukraine regains it's land going to fade or will the west get serious about sending enough equipment and training enough people on top notch gear to win going to happen? Lot's of bright, young men with 8 weeks training on a tank but not enough to win.
I think because Kyiv is fairly well protected along with Liviv in the west people feel this has been fairly successful. If Ukraine loses 30% of it's territory, 3 million people injured or killed and even more displaced, can we call it a success?
I know a lot of pro Russian sided people kind of laugh at some of the coverage and the optimism that a lot of us have with things but I am starting to think we might not be getting anywhere near the full story.
Seems like some of the positive information we had regarding the counteroffensive has really died down in the last few weeks and is now turning quite negative. Reports of significant pullback in some areas as a result of staggering losses in both men and equipment is taking a toll on strategy and moral.
Russia had a LOT of time to prep serious levels of defenses across huge swaths of the frontline while NATO and western countries sat around and discussed a few tanks here and there for a grand total of 300 or something? Jet's in 6-9 months. Perhaps 25% of those tanks disabled within days of the offensive starting.
Ukraine has been given a lot of tools, equipment, training, intelligence and more. Can Ukraine really do what the west and NATO wants and that is liberate their land and gain back Crimea? That has been he starting point for Ukraine's leadership and nothing less.
Will the supporting allies provide significant long range missile support right away? Can they get top notch air defense, artillery and airforce equipment?
Are we asking them to do something that hasn't been done before with regards to beating an opponent without air superiority and having enough tools in the toolbox so to speak? We may be headed towards an inflection point where the roosters may be coming out to roost.
If we don't have major advances soon, is the chance that Ukraine regains it's land going to fade or will the west get serious about sending enough equipment and training enough people on top notch gear to win going to happen? Lot's of bright, young men with 8 weeks training on a tank but not enough to win.
I think because Kyiv is fairly well protected along with Liviv in the west people feel this has been fairly successful. If Ukraine loses 30% of it's territory, 3 million people injured or killed and even more displaced, can we call it a success?
I know a lot of pro Russian sided people kind of laugh at some of the coverage and the optimism that a lot of us have with things but I am starting to think we might not be getting anywhere near the full story.
No. This is going about as well as at least I was expecting. This was never going to be pretty or fast, and personally I consider it a positive sign that progress is still being made, even if slow. The war is at an attritional stage, and I've seen nothing that suggest Ukraine couldn't keep doing what they're doing as long as morale holds.
The real question is of course whether or not Western morale/support holds, but those decisions are being made with probably more accurate information than any civilian has access to. However, I've seen no signs of a significant drop in the will to support Ukraine.
Yes, the situation is not great, but at least for me, there are a still more question marks hovering around Russia's ability to stay in the war. The Wagner uprising was already a huge sign that Putin's real support is on extremely thin ice. Russia's economy might also be in an extremely shaky position already, and their actual ability to produce/acquire new materiel is somewhat questionable. For example they've been making heavy use of their Soviet era stockpiles, which while significant are a finite resource that will at some point start running out. The quality of that stockpile materiel also likely will be worse and worse over time. Ukraine on the other hand is transitioning to the opposite direction, towards more modern NATO hardware.
Does that mean a Russian collapse is inevitable? No, and it's certainly not imminent, I don't see them collapsing this year. But it was never realistic to end this war this year, and if it ends next year, it will still have been a fairly short war for something this big.
For comparison, the Korean War lasted 3 years, the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, Vietnam lasted 20 years, the Bosnian war lasted 3 years... This one has only lasted about a year and a half. These kinds of big conventional wars are just never over before Christmas unfortunately.
Ukraine has already transitioned their tactics to better fit the realities of an attritional war, which means that there's really small odds of any significant breakthroughs or huge landgrabs, or anything headline grabbing really.
Germany has already committed itself to supporting Ukraine until I think 2027, which gives you an idea of where we're at in the war. We're really just settling in for the long haul.ä really
It's still a 50/50 war in my books, where the main likely outcomes are either a Russian collapse and full retreat or the borders ending up about where the battlelines are. As long as that first option looks plausible, Ukraine has a good reason to keep going.
Last edited by Itse; 08-09-2023 at 04:53 AM.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Late last year, the Economist asked a dozen or so military analysts and historians to project the outcome of the Ukraine war based on all the data they had on modern wars. They predicted that the war would last 4-6 years and end in a negotiated settlement.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Late last year, the Economist asked a dozen or so military analysts and historians to project the outcome of the Ukraine war based on all the data they had on modern wars. They predicted that the war would last 4-6 years and end in a negotiated settlement.
Freezing the war is Putin's goal. He wants to get it to the next US presidential election in hopes it becomes a rallying point for the Republicans to cut support and hope he gets the orange idiot back in charge.
No. This is going about as well as at least I was expecting. This was never going to be pretty or fast, and personally I consider it a positive sign that progress is still being made, even if slow. The war is at an attritional stage, and I've seen nothing that suggest Ukraine couldn't keep doing what they're doing as long as morale holds.
I'm getting the impression that it's going a lot slower than hoped for mainly due to the Russian defences and being well dug in.
Quote:
Why is Ukraine's progress so slow?
In two months Ukrainian troops have advanced, at most, about 10 miles (16km) in two areas along the region's 100-mile (160km) front, according to independent analysis.
Progress is being made, but it is slower than Ukraine and its Western allies had hoped.
Ukrainian forces have been attacking on three fronts, using Western-supplied equipment and training, and probing for weak spots along the entire 700-mile (1,125km) front line.
But the Russians foresaw their intentions, and they have spent months building the most extensive fortifications in recent history.
Triple layers of trenches, bunkers, concrete pyramid tank-traps (so-called "dragon's teeth") and ditches - laced with thousands of landmines - present a massive obstacle to any Ukrainian advance, as illustrated in the satellite image below, taken near Tokmak.
The war is definitely a slog at this point. But I am not buying the doom 'n gloom at the counteroffensive has a been a failure. Unless people were expecting a COD romp (which very clearly some people were), this has ALWAYS been the the predicted outcome; very slow, very steady and days/weeks that don't go well . Dilly dallying around making decisions to send tanks, equipment, training, etc, gave the enemy time to dig in and mine every square inch they can. Ukraine knew this and was pleading for faster speeds in deliveries. Prior to that the West should have a made a very public decision to go all in. Half measures that are the bare minimum only serve to portray the west as disorganized, weak and open to persuasion by russian disinformation.
This isn't surprising at at the pace is what it is, and it's obvious why Ukraine reports very simple gains such as a few hundred meters, or a few kilometers. There has to be SOME good news to report, no matter how small, so people don't lose patience. There are obviously politicians out there who don't seem to like the pace, even though they are the very ones who put silly restrictions such as not using their equipment to hit legit targets in russian territory, or having to approve strikes by Ukraine in case a "high profile" target is there. Silly, stupid restrictions imposed that they themselves would NEVER adhere to if it was them fighting, yet being "disappointed" when Ukraine doesn't pull of a COD speedrun.
And I am still unclear as to WTF is going on with the F-16s. Training has begun...right? Every day I read something about so and so approving training. But are Ukrainians actually at a training facility somewhere training on the damn things? Has there even been an official announcement of F-16s being sent over on a specific date? As in, someone with authority specifically saying in a press conference "yes we have approved x number of jets and they will be sent on this date". I see a lot of people (aka. former generals or armchair twitterers) saying it's a done deal. But a link to an exact announcement by a top official would be good to see.
It's dancing around like that, that plays right into russian hands. And people STILL haven't learned this, that it benefits one side only to dance around like this. Ukraine is doing the best they can, with what they were given, with the restrictions imposed on them, with the timelines they were given, against the very enemy NATO has spent 70+ preparing to fight. To me it's a miracle they have lasted this long and are still in the fight. Nobody said it would be easy.
Last edited by Huntingwhale; 08-09-2023 at 09:35 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
I found the interview in this podcast to be very informative and clear as it addressed the progress of the offensive and in particular the piecemeal western/NATO support that has been offered to Ukraine so far. Starts at 19:00ish
Seems like some of the positive information we had regarding the counteroffensive has really died down in the last few weeks and is now turning quite negative. Reports of significant pullback in some areas as a result of staggering losses in both men and equipment is taking a toll on strategy and moral.
Russia had a LOT of time to prep serious levels of defenses across huge swaths of the frontline while NATO and western countries sat around and discussed a few tanks here and there for a grand total of 300 or something? Jet's in 6-9 months. Perhaps 25% of those tanks disabled within days of the offensive starting.
Ukraine has been given a lot of tools, equipment, training, intelligence and more. Can Ukraine really do what the west and NATO wants and that is liberate their land and gain back Crimea? That has been he starting point for Ukraine's leadership and nothing less.
Will the supporting allies provide significant long range missile support right away? Can they get top notch air defense, artillery and airforce equipment?
Are we asking them to do something that hasn't been done before with regards to beating an opponent without air superiority and having enough tools in the toolbox so to speak? We may be headed towards an inflection point where the roosters may be coming out to roost.
If we don't have major advances soon, is the chance that Ukraine regains it's land going to fade or will the west get serious about sending enough equipment and training enough people on top notch gear to win going to happen? Lot's of bright, young men with 8 weeks training on a tank but not enough to win.
I think because Kyiv is fairly well protected along with Liviv in the west people feel this has been fairly successful. If Ukraine loses 30% of it's territory, 3 million people injured or killed and even more displaced, can we call it a success?
I know a lot of pro Russian sided people kind of laugh at some of the coverage and the optimism that a lot of us have with things but I am starting to think we might not be getting anywhere near the full story.
I always find your posts have a "I'm only asking questions" vibe to them.
Just my opinion but they just seem "off".
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Different people had different expectations, and there's also a gap between hopes and realistic expectations. I think a lot US and British media has often been somewhat excessively hopeful (when they haven't been unnecessarily doom and gloom). I feel like Finnish media for example has been more even-keeled / realistic.
Personally I was mentally prepared for things to go much worse than they have. It even seems that casualty/loss ratios have still mostly favored Ukraine despite them being on the offensive, which if true is a remarkable military achievement in itself. That's a huge reason why I think there IS a real chance that Ukraine pulls off "the impossible" here despite what the odds are on paper.
(But again, the impossible is more likely to mean they can drain Russian resources more than Russia can handle economically, or more than the Russian people will tolerate. A huge military breakthrough seems unlikely.)
Last edited by Itse; 08-09-2023 at 11:26 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
While Ukraine is slowly somewhat catching up in terms of materiel, Russia is simultaneously catching up strategically and tactically. They were an absolute mess to begin with, but they have learned a lot of lessons and put them to use. While Ukraine has also been learning obviously, it's still likely that that gap is slowly closing.
That's a big reason why I think big military breakthrough are unlikely. Over time, both sides will inevitably have the best military experts in the world to fight this specific war, and the closer things are to even, the less likely it is that anything truly dramatic happens.
Eventually Russia is going to have to massively increase their industrial output, particularly when it comes to making new weapons, or withdraw. They have stockpiles of old weapons they are using but eventually those will run out.
The issue for Ukraine is that they can't really attack many of the areas they've lost without some kind of naval presence. Russia has actually withdrawn some of their navy, as the drone campaign has been pretty effective. Russia has ships worth 10s of millions being bombarded by cheap naval drones. That's still doesn't solve the problem of moving troops around the Black Sea. Without that option, the only option is land invasion.
Then how does Ukraine advance into the areas that Russia has covered in mines?
This seems like a war destined to end up in some kind of stalemate.
I always find your posts have a "I'm only asking questions" vibe to them.
Just my opinion but they just seem "off".
I mean I think everybody is asking questions about everything all the time. I am firmly, without a doubt, pro Ukraine in this battle. I have LONG advocated for a much stronger response from the west and to quit wasting time with Putin. There is no deal for Putin to be had here. He isn't a business guy. He doesn't care. It's he wins and you, I and the west are suppose to lose, in his mind.
In his mind, Ukraine is his, what type of settlement would be done in that regard? Russia losing annexed territory? Ukraine being given security guarantee's with top notch NATO gear literally at his border along with troops from other countries?
A recent CNN interview with military analysts was very somber, in that they are estimating 40 k out of the 60K western trained troops have been killed or badly wounded in this offensive. That is a huge portion of their firepower and equipment being lost. What happens if Russia than goes on the offensive in some regions with an even more weakened Ukraine defense forces?
A recent US Airforce training article I had posted previously indicated that while Ukraine had incredible pilots, pilots that were training in the US before and during the invasion, a lot of the best ones have been killed in mass numbers. What will happen in 6-9 months? Who will be left to be trained? You and I may be able to be trained to be somewhat basic combat ready ground troops in 6-9 months but that wouldn't apply to us flying F16 Jet's. So when Joe Biden said in February that Ukraine doesn't need jet's now, he may just have been flat out wrong, despite Ukraine pleading for them for a LONG time prior.
I hope I am totally wrong on this but I have noticed a massive shift in messaging from western, mainstream media in the last few days and their reporting. Very somber about the prospects of Ukraine punching through huge swaths of defensive positions, retaking land and than seizing Crimea back. Look at how much infighting there was with getting Ukraine 300 tanks, what about getting them another 1000? What about top notch jet's, helicopters, long range missiles and even more?
Nothing wrong with asking questions as we had been lead to believe that Ukraine is taking back it's land and Russia collapsing under military and economic defeat. I am not sure that is entirely the case at the moment.
The western delays providing tanks and planes allowed Russia to dig in extensively. I remain optimistic that Russia will eventually give up and go home. Western nations need to clamp down on sanctions leakage and step up material support.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
While Ukraine is slowly somewhat catching up in terms of materiel, Russia is simultaneously catching up strategically and tactically. They were an absolute mess to begin with, but they have learned a lot of lessons and put them to use. While Ukraine has also been learning obviously, it's still likely that that gap is slowly closing.
That's a big reason why I think big military breakthrough are unlikely. Over time, both sides will inevitably have the best military experts in the world to fight this specific war, and the closer things are to even, the less likely it is that anything truly dramatic happens.
I recall seeing a CNN interview with former Google CEO Eric Schmit saying he was stunned at how proficient and technically advanced Russian forces were at jamming western military drones. He was on a visit to Ukraine for some reason. That was an eye opening statement from a former head of a top American technology firm.
I mean I think everybody is asking questions about everything all the time. I am firmly, without a doubt, pro Ukraine in this battle. I have LONG advocated for a much stronger response from the west and to quit wasting time with Putin. There is no deal for Putin to be had here. He isn't a business guy. He doesn't care. It's he wins and you, I and the west are suppose to lose, in his mind.
In his mind, Ukraine is his, what type of settlement would be done in that regard? Russia losing annexed territory? Ukraine being given security guarantee's with top notch NATO gear literally at his border along with troops from other countries?
A recent CNN interview with military analysts was very somber, in that they are estimating 40 k out of the 60K western trained troops have been killed or badly wounded in this offensive. That is a huge portion of their firepower and equipment being lost. What happens if Russia than goes on the offensive in some regions with an even more weakened Ukraine defense forces?
A recent US Airforce training article I had posted previously indicated that while Ukraine had incredible pilots, pilots that were training in the US before and during the invasion, a lot of the best ones have been killed in mass numbers. What will happen in 6-9 months? Who will be left to be trained? You and I may be able to be trained to be somewhat basic combat ready ground troops in 6-9 months but that wouldn't apply to us flying F16 Jet's. So when Joe Biden said in February that Ukraine doesn't need jet's now, he may just have been flat out wrong, despite Ukraine pleading for them for a LONG time prior.
I hope I am totally wrong on this but I have noticed a massive shift in messaging from western, mainstream media in the last few days and their reporting. Very somber about the prospects of Ukraine punching through huge swaths of defensive positions, retaking land and than seizing Crimea back. Look at how much infighting there was with getting Ukraine 300 tanks, what about getting them another 1000? What about top notch jet's, helicopters, long range missiles and even more?
Nothing wrong with asking questions as we had been lead to believe that Ukraine is taking back it's land and Russia collapsing under military and economic defeat. I am not sure that is entirely the case at the moment.
That sounds ridiculous.
I honestly just wouldn't listen to anything on CNN, they're kinda terrible.
The western delays providing tanks and planes allowed Russia to dig in extensively. I remain optimistic that Russia will eventually give up and go home. Western nations need to clamp down on sanctions leakage and step up material support.
Winter and spring allowed Russia to dig in extensively. The weather in Ukraine is unsuitable for major operations until late May.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
